Anyone who reads Android Police knows that we generally spend a lot more time debunking rumors and leaks than we do actually reporting them as valid news. With that said, this could be the best look we've seen at the upcoming Galaxy S III yet (if Samsung chooses to stick with that name, of course). While this is most definitely a real device, it's possible that it could be something different than the GSIII altogether, though I honestly doubt that Sammy would pack this kind of hardware into anything other than its highest-end flagship:

4.6-inch 1280x720 Super AMOLED display

1.4GHz quad-core processor

1GB RAM

8MP rear camera

16GB built-in storage, microSD card slot

NFC

2,050mAh battery

Android 4.0

Okay, okay. I know you want to see this thing. So here you go (it's in Vietnamese, but there are subtitles):

So, what do you think? He states in the video that the design itself could change, as "Samsung has used a fake outer shell designed to ensure the machine isn't exposed until it is unveiled," so we'll have to see what the 'real' device will look like in a little less than two weeks. Speaking of, when Engadget asked Samsung for a comment, this is what they had to say:

Comments

Yes ! On screen buttons ! Take that HTC :D also this looks to the description I posted on G+ few weeks ago. Maybe they change something in the end ans make it more powerful and capable

ericl5112

I wish it had hard buttons like the One X. I like the added screen real estate.

bjn714

Except there are still way too many apps that will steal that real-estate with the ridiculous legacy menu button.

ericl5112

Those will get fewer and fewer. Almost all the apps I use now are targeted at ICS. You can never gain the screen apace back from on screen buttons.

cashd00d

Once again... you get no added screen real estate. If a phone is using on-screen buttons, they make the actual display taller to add the buttons to the bottom. If the phone is using capacitive buttons, the actual display is shorter. If anything, the phone with on-screen buttons gives you more screen space, as they are able to disappear when you run something in full-screen mode.

ericl5112

That is the most annoying and ridiculous argument. People always say that, but do they ever bother to see if it's true? Not usually.

Let's look at the Galaxy Nexus. It has on screen buttons and a 4.65" screen, approximately 4.3" usable. Let's look at other phones that have the full 4.6-4.7" screen usable and compare.

Notice anything? The Gnex is no smaller, and often a little bigger than these phones. It's easily the tallest, and only wins at being the narrowest be a small margin. These phones ALL have a bigger usable screen then the Nexus. Yet, they are all shorter and only a little wider. Call it a draw. Particularly, look at the Nexus vs the SGS2 HD LTE. Exact same screen, might even be same internals. One has 4.65" usable screen. One does not. No appreciable size difference.Your argument is interesting, but we haven't seen it in practical use yet.

I'd wager that there are internal components around the screen that do not easily allow the bezel to be reduced by much, making capacitive buttons using space that would be there no matter what. Especially on thin phones. You might have been wondering why I included the droid Razr. It's an excellent example about how thin phones need to take up more height and width. It's about the size of some of those 4.7" phones. There are internal parts that need space, capacitive buttons are not the only reason that space is there.

Finally, the thought of on-screen buttons giving more space is bizarre. If the SGS3 is 4.65" and the One X is 4.7", they are close enough, no difference. If the SGS3 has a 4.65" screen and on screen buttons, it's essentially a 4.3" screen. It only gets to be a 4.65" screen in certain apps. It grows to be the same size, not bigger. It starts smaller.

to me its not about screen/ size comparison. I like software buttons for a reason. I think it helps Google create a certain identity because eventually all phones will come with on screen keys, what does that mean? Google and add and remove stuff from the entire OS (including buttons) and simply have them change with the new OS, something they cant do with current hardware buttons, but that's not all if I don't like how my buttons are arranged I can simply change them with a mod, not something you can do with physical buttons. heck even some mods remove physical buttons and leave you with something you press on the sides to do stuff (like the quick buttons) they can even add gestures to the bar. in the end they offer future advantages from hardware buttons I'm willing to look forward to those

ericl5112

@protozeloz:disqus Those are valid reasons. Can't say I share any, but they are at least reasonable. Very different from the unproven "it makes the screen bigger" argument.

about the "make screen bigger" argument, its still under debate. Nexus might not be the best example out there, but sadly is the only example we currently have about a device with on screen buttons and what I mean is this

to my eyes the GNex is taller than the leaked "unfinished" galaxy S3 I think nexus was made that way on on purpose, It will be until we see companies pushing more devices with no buttons that will start looking at phones with "more screen" in "less space" until then we might have a hard time telling how good it will fare in terms of design. and the reason Why I look forward what you can do with on screen buttons as a user instead of a "big screen small body" thing.

To be honest I could see future close updates using gestures on the on screen buttons to perform more actions. I could also see how the on screen buttons may give your device new features if worked out (I have a few crazy ideas). its why I want to see them adopted in the near future.

cashd00d

I was referring to this: http://www.droid-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/galaxy-screen.png

ericl5112

Cool, you have a picture. That is all. Prove to me that picture is possible as a reality. So far, it hasn't shown to be, and doesn't address any of my points about it...

If this is all the S3 brings to the table I'll probably go with the OneX I planned on getting that anyway unless this "wows" me....but it doesn't. If it came out with a 1080p screen then, I'd jump on this....but not with the same rez as every other high end phone this year

cashd00d

If you put a 1080p and 720p screen in each hand, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

yeah you can, keep in mind I couldn't care less about video playback. What I'm looking at would be resolution. The way images are displayed would look totally different on a 720 screen as apposed to a 1080 screen. Look at different android phones, you can tell each bump in resolution and 720 to 1080 would be no different. for example look at a computer running windows on a 800x600 res and then look at the same computer running 1024x768 (I probably have my aspect ratios wrong) you can tell that they are different and that's not even a major bump

RajivSK

@xcom923:disqus Dude, really? You've got to be kidding me. Your example completely misses the point. No one is disputing you can see the difference between 800×600 and 1024×768. That difference (on a standard 21" monitor) translates to a decrease in pixel size of about a 0.00002 square inch. Which indeed is noticeable.
The difference between 720p and 1080p on a 4.6" screen however scales to a decrease in pixel size of only 0.0000008 square inch. Which is about 25 times harder to notice.

@RajivSK:disqus sorry dude you're the one who's missing the point. I understand everything that was said, my point is that software reacts to resolution depending on the size. the reason you can tell the difference between small changes in resolution with any UI is because you are looking at a UI. You probably won't be able to tell the difference on a 4.7" screen if you are watching a movie but if you are just looking at a standard homescreen I promise you you'll notice a difference. This is because programs are designed to work within different spaces and if you increase the resolution you increase the space that programs have.

RajivSK

@xcom923:disqus Well it seems I was elaborating on the wrong subject than. So it's not that you wish everything to be sharper and more clear, it is that you wish everything to be smaller.
While you would have a point, if again we were talking computer monitors, aps and also homescreens and other UI components are in fact NOT designed with resolution in mind but with DPI. If you were familiar with android programming you'd know that Android doesn't render images and UI components based on there native resolution. Developers are instead required to include images in multiple resolutions. Based on the DPI of the screen displaying the app, it picks the right component for that particular screen's DPI, nullifying any unwanted scaling effects that would appear on higher resolution screens.

So the extra space you think you'd gain would be used to display higher res components instead, taking up the same space lower res components would take up on a lower res screen. The only difference would therefore again be the unnoticeable increase in detail of the rendered images making up the UI.

keep in mind this whole argument started because I said I could tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on a small screen. I never said I "wanted" it. I marely was stating that the GS3 or whatever doesn't make enough of a difference to make it a better choice over the one X. BUT if you do really want to get into it.....yes I am very aware of how android works I'm a developer myself and while I'm still in school for software dev. I have some experience in the field and let me tell you everything you're mentioning is true but....other developers don't always use all the tools that they have at their disposal. At the same time not everyone does everything they are supposed to do. You are mentioning how things would be ideally but in reality there are tons of programs that are not programmed with dpi in mind.

Also let me point out that I was refering to space. Yes you could keep things all the same size from one screen to the next but when you have a higher rez screen you can keep the sharpness and shrink it down more than you would have been able to before. For example. when I moved to the evo 3d I had more resolution to play with so my widgets while being the same size allows me to resize them and not loose any space and I could fit more on the screen (or less if I wanted, and simply move them where I wanted to). There are all kinds of reasons for larger rez. Not all I have mentioned here

@RajivSK:disqus The Android OS and SDK do not "REQUIRE" the use of Density-independent Pixel (dp) units, they just strongly recommend it and include a lot of helper methods that expect it. If a developer hated themselves enough, they could do everything they want in pixels (and in the early days it wasn't uncommon).

@xcom923:disqus Like I said to Rajiv, it's pretty rare to see a developer using any unit other than dp in regular apps. Games take on some additional complications, as would anything more graphically intensive. Most developers are not breaking from conventions. There may be tons of programs written without DPI in mind (and inferring that the developers aren't using any built-in mechanisms that handle it), but as a side effect nobody is buying those apps either.

I guess I will weigh in...but I doubt I'll keep it going with further responses. It's true that there are some positioning and quality (read: sharpness) benefits to pushing to even higher pixel density than the eye's ability to discern individual pixels. Just because the eye can't discern the the difference between individual pixels doesn't mean the eye can't see a difference in the bigger picture...again, Apple's marketing and spin causes tons of misconceptions.

On the other hand, consider that going from a 1280x720 resolution up to a 1920x1080 resolution also means going from rendering 921,600 pixels up to rendering 2,073,600 pixels (assuming we keep the 16x9 aspect ratio)...Hey, I'm all for quality, but pumping out more than double the pixels isn't worth it. Here's a short list of the bigger implications:

a) Obviously it's far more work for the GPU (and to a lesser degree the CPU), meaning more power usage and shorter battery life...possibly also running hotter.
b) More expensive screens. If you know about the manufacturing process, you'd know the throw-away rate would skyrocket and screens at this density would probably cost 6x-10x more (at least for now, these things always get better over time)
c) Apps are now going to be even bigger because included graphic assets will now have to account for higher resolutions, and that's chewing up your internal memory. People are already complaining when apps include the xhdpi graphics, and those ARE intended for the Galaxy Nexus and SGS III. Who here wants to see Angry Birds take up 100 MB (made up size, I don't care enough to calculate it)? Btw, the Android SDK doesn't currently have a built-in classification for that DPI, so most developers aren't going to go to the trouble of manually coding in support (which is how it would have to be done until Google released an update).

Let me just say, we only recently broke the barrier into 720p phones and the 9" and above tablets should be regularly hitting 1080p this year. Let's allow these resolutions a pleasant stay and not immediately usher them out at a very high cost for very little gain. I wouldn't be surprised if the next 2-year upgrade we're all doing still doesn't include a 1080p screen.

@CodyToombs:disqus great post, long or not you did hit on the main reason why we haven't gone 1080 yet, a combo of software and hardware limitations. I totally agree. I don't think it'll take longer than 2 years to get to 1080 screens built in the SDK though. In fact Transformer infinity is supposed to have that screen and it wouldn't surprise me if they put it in the Jellybean SDK (I forget what rNumber we're at now LOL), thanks for the info

@xcom923:disqus The Infinity is a different subject entirely...It's a 10.1" screen with a resolution of 1920x1200 (16x10 is the aspect ratio for most tablets) which means the pixel density is 224.17 ppi, not 487.89 ppi like a 1920x1080 phone with a 4.6" screen would be. The issue here is pixel density, not resolution. Frankly, the tablets have the space for more battery and heat management and the 10" category NEEDS to be higher than most of them are now...Apple did correctly point out, they don't need as high of pixel density since they won't be as close to the eyes when used.

Also, a quick correction of my own Faux Pas, I used DPI in my last comment, I meant to use PPI...damn habit won't break :)

AhChoo

yeah, maybe when your eyes are .0012341243 inches apart from the screen. plus having 1080p would result in approximately 478 ppi, while thats nice and all, you might need whole lot of extra batteries, not to mention that its just not feasible for any company to manufacture it

Steven Caravella

according to CNET it may have eye-tracking technologies but I dont see that in this video...I was really looking forward to that :(

Crap, you guys got me all pumped the other day saying that the GS III was going to have the new Dual core a15 Exynos.

SAMSUNG WHY ARE YOU GIVING MEIZU YOUR FLAGSHIP PROCESSOR BEFORE YOU USE IT?!

VitoCassisi

I take it you've never owned a Meizu device. Their ROMs are so terrible that you could put the most amazing SoC design in it, and it'll still be mediocre. Either way, the SGSIII will be released before the new MX.

Josh Nichols

No, it will be announced before the MX. The MX comes out in June. The SGSIII will be announced in May. I highly doubt Samsung is going to pull a release out of their asses in one month.

VitoCassisi

Why not? Samsung did say they wanted to release it close to the announcement. That's also assuming Meizu stick to their schedule.

anetam

Actually, the current Meizu MX and the soon-to-come quad-core MX both use the A9 Exynos (dual and quad core respectively). You can check on their website:

Did nobody read the post earlier this week about why the Brazilian leak video was likely inaccurate, making the very logical sounding argument that Samsung would not allow the Quad Core A9 to be announced in a phone before they officially announced it in the GSIII. The author then went on to write that their guess was that Samsung was actually going to use the new A15 dual core to blow the A9 Quad out of the water, and therefore did not care their flagship processor was announced in a lower level competitor's device before Sammy did.

WHY CAN I NOT FIND THIS POST NOW?

Vanick Ng

no offense to the galaxy s series... but if this is the true s3....im a little disappointed...

Vanick Ng

no offense to the galaxy s series... but if this is the true s3....im a little disappointed...

Biggerguy_sf

Hmmmm...no front-facing camera?

Biggerguy_sf

Hmmmm...no front-facing camera?

fixxmyhead

damn. very very dissapointed if this is the final product. this is not enough for me to justify spending 500+. i have a gs2 and its not much of an upgrade for me to spend that kind of money (i mean come on still using last years gpu step it up
samsung ). ill wait for the next nexus or s4.

kasing

If i'm seeing it right, the GPU stays as the MALI-400 MP =(

ssj4Gogeta

It says nothing about the clocks though.

Cenarl

I want to like this but I think im now addicted to the phablets, bring on the sequel to the Note please!

That seems like the most legit leak so far. Still not the final casing I don't think. At least, I hope not. Not sure that this is enough for me to pass the One X for it. I was really hoping for a 2500mAh+ battery. That would have made this phone a no brainer in my opinion.

james carroll

that is kinda of fugly i like the epic 4g touch ( sprint GSII) better

L boogie

im not sure about this device being the GS3 but then again May 3rd is right around the corner so i'll reserve judgement until then

I hope the battery lasts long. A quad core processor has to be very hungry.

MarkC77

Either this is the mid level phone and the S3 will have higher specs or its a down-specced version of the S3. These "lunchbox" hpones have been around since December. What if the real thing has a faster CPU, more RAM and so on.. These things wouldn't affect developer/teleco testing, hence they have this device.
Just like everyone else I'm guessing - we'll find out May 3rd.

MarkC77

Either this is the mid level phone and the S3 will have higher specs or its a down-specced version of the S3. These "lunchbox" hpones have been around since December. What if the real thing has a faster CPU, more RAM and so on.. These things wouldn't affect developer/teleco testing, hence they have this device.
Just like everyone else I'm guessing - we'll find out May 3rd.

Why do they do that to ICS? It's so pretty in stock form. Samsung skin is horrible.

Lou

I am looking forward to the final product.

Honestly if you need a "best spec" camera for a phone you might as well just buy a separate camera. I never use my phone camera for anything except for little things. No one is going to use their phone to take beautiful shots of the mountains or anything like that. Its a bloody feature not the base of the product!

I also hope if there is a T-Mo version, it will actually look nice. The T-Mo GSII was not nearly as appealing in its design.

Prados

And why not? Why shouldn't we have phones with great cameras? The technology obviously exists (N8), so why not use it? Is it so important to keep a line between the proper standalone cameras and phone cams?

Sure, in the end, standalone cameras will always be better, but that doesn't mean phone cams can't reach very high levels.

I just can't understand that kind of attitude. What do you people have against great cameras in phones? I wan't my smartphone to be an all round device, great for business and pleasure alike.

Only a gig of ram? if they are doing minor updates (e.g. iphone 4s) they might as well call it the galaxy s2s or maybe just the galaxy ss if they want to add insult to injury. i would like to see the rumored flexible oled that they were supposed to be launching in devices this year

Bleakvision

Last year the reaction was meh as well. Remember WVGA? And then the benchmarks came in...

Ok, I'm not going to call it a fake or anything like that. I find most of the other details fairly believable, obviously the hype about the phone was going to go overboard and manufacturing a phone with the absolute highest end components imaginable would be too expensive to put on the market...but I do find some odd curiosities in this:

1 gig of ram...sure, that's similar to what other devices are landing with, but Samsung was sorta drug over the coals when they used ram as an excuse not to push ICS to the Galaxy S. All things considered, it would have been smarter to at least push the number a bit higher to future-proof it in the eyes of customers.

Why wouldn't they make it a Super AMOLED+ display? This is Samsung producing a major flagship, why not put in the superior screen technology which can be found in several other devices already on the market. Clearly this could just be a typo though.

Also on subject of screen, there were a LOT of leaks that put the screen at 4.7 or 4.8 inch. I actually like to see they are restraining themselves (even if it's only .2 inches), but so many leaks makes me at least curious about why the final version is inconsistent with the others.

As others have mentioned, why are we looking at a somewhat older GPU? Again, flagship...

Like I said, I'm not calling this a fake, just observing some irregularities. I admit, I was expecting something that would push the limits a little more, not something that cut some corners.